On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 4:14 PM Alan Carvalho de Assis wrote: > On 10/14/21, Tomasz CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 3:15 PM Tomasz CEDRO wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 2:28 AM Nathan Hartman wrote: > >> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:49 PM Gregory Nutt wrote: > >> > > > Matias N. made some progress before; > >> > > > Unified device interface, callback based initialization and > >> > > > devicetree > >> > > > (DTS) · Issue #3031 · apache/incubator-nuttx (github.com) > >> > > > <https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/issues/3031> > >> > > > [RFC] Using devicetree (DTS) to improve board support · Issue #1020 > >> > > > · > >> > > > apache/incubator-nuttx (github.com) > >> > > > <https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/issues/1020> > >> > > > >> > > The conversation that I was trying to initiate here is NOT whether > >> > > these > >> > > features are good or bad, but to propose a way to create a feature > >> > > road > >> > > map for the OS. Through the established voting process we can > >> > > determine > >> > > in advance whether features are needed by the community or not. > > > > One more thing I forgot to mention. > > > > Democracy as we see today is vulnerable to manipulation by "mass > > migration". I saw many good open-source projects being hurt by "new > > fancy trends" to the point where solid old developers left the project > > and it was taken over by the "progress is achieved by enforcing > > changes"^TM* folks simply removing or breaking stuff that has been > > there for years and worked well. > > > > In technology world Meritocracy seems better approach. Therefore > > Voting Rank seems a reasonable solution. Developers with more commits > > should have higher Rank than people that did commit less or anything, > > so the voting is balanced by people that have better insight and > > understanding of the internals and current implementation. I am not > > sure how the formula should look like, I am just throwing the idea > > that people who created more should have more to say :-) > > > > *) I heard that "according to Microsoft progress is achieved by > > enforcing changes" for the first time from the UI/UX folk that removed > > Menu from Toolbar in GIMP around 2008 with no backward compatibility > > option, then they put that Menu in a separate Window, and because > > there was nothing yet in that window they called it "No Window" ;-) > > That broke my current workflow where I had one toolbar for many > > windows on many screens but enforced new UX vision that we know today. > > Another example is Linux Kernel API change around 2.4.10 (I was using > > it since 2.0.36) with every minor release that made me consider that > > OS self-incompatible and pushed me towards FreeBSD for good. Another > > example is Blender Player removal from 2.90 release with no > > alternative or even plan for a replacement. Not to mention JavaScript > > world where things change day by day. I just wonder if those people > > ever heard about compliance and maintenance, or just want to generate > > long term support contracts. > > > > Although I agree with out about Meritocracy, this is not the "Apache Way".
Okay :-) > BTW I think you are talking Blender Game Engine, it became a separated > project: > There is more info here: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBhEgQVpv2M I know this one, its a fork of 2.90+ with BGE rewrite, unfortunately it is not backward compatible, so I stick to old Blender. Godot / Armory is the way to go for new stuff. Blender became just a graphics tool, road is closed for all-in-one scientific simulations with Python + 3D + VR + embedded. https://github.com/UPBGE/upbge/issues/1082 https://github.com/sambler/sambler-redports/tree/master/graphics -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
